rity for bishops, priests, and deacons marrying after Ordination, nor was it allowed in the primitive Church even before the Council of Nice, as appears from the Apostolical canons, which represent in general the discipline in force throughout the world in the second century."

My Latin Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles was printed, without being published, in the summer of A.D. 1840, in order that I might have copies of it to take with me to Russia.

["The Greek Church, as well as the Latin accepted the principle, that whoever had taken holy orders before marriage, ought not to be married afterwards,” Hefele, Counc., ii. 2, § 43. "Non licere autem illis post ordinationem, si uxores non habent, matrimonium contrahere," Apost. Const. vii. 17.]

5 [As Dr. Routh was himself married, I would understand him here merely as conceding the force of an argumentum ad hominem as urged against the Protestant objection to the doctrine of the Blessed Virgin's Assumption; for if there is no early tradition for it, neither is there any tradition for, or rather there is an explicit or implicit tradition against, the marriage of persons in holy orders.]

CHAPTER II.

Dr. Routh sanctions the project.

R. ROUTH, President of Magdalen College, who

DR.

allowed me so familiarly to consult him, died in 1855, when he was in his hundredth year. He was full of information about the Revolution of 1688, almost as if he had lived at that time, and he was once much amused by a young man's asking him whether it was not true that he had seen Charles the Second. He answered laughingly, "No, sir, but I have seen a lady whose mother had seen Charles the Second." Charles, he used to say, kept himself in the saddle, because he knew more than those about him; James lost his throne because he knew less, and was kept in ignorance of the truth by those about him, and induced by them of set purpose to do what they knew would render him unpopular. He was the most ill-used man in his dominion.

Dr. Routh, however, was not, as any one born in our century might have supposed at first from his

conversation, a representative of the old Jacobites and the old Tories, and of those Nonjuring Divines who were ejected from their benefices after the Revolution of 1688. On the contrary, he was a Whig of the old school, and a friend of Sir Francis Burdett.

Speaking of Sir Francis, he said that he was no mischievous agitator, nor traitor, nor revolutionist, but that there had been great abuses and great corruption, against which he contended in such way as he could.

And, speaking generally, the rights of the people and the supremacy of the people, when advocated by certain great families, did not (he considered) mean all that was imputed by opponents, but only so much as might be necessary from time to time to serve the interest of the party, which was really oligarchical. As time has gone on, the two great parties have more than once shifted their ground, the Tories having at length transferred their allegiance and their ideal loyalty to the House of Hanover, and having taken up the political standing of the original Whigs, and the Whigs having become more and more liberal. The old and true maxim was, that the king could do no wrong; that is, that, if he did any wrong, the minister, or other person who did it for him, could be accused, tried, and punished in the king's name; but now the maxim is that the king can do nothing at all, neither wrong nor right, but all is to be done for him by the

man who has the ear of the House of Commons. But what is called the Cabinet and the office of Prime Minister is a super-fœtation entirely unknown to the Constitution. "As things are now," he sometimes said, "the Government may be called a disguised or veiled republic; and I think, sir," (this was after the Reform Bill), "that I see an intention, or at least a tendency, to make it an undisguised republic."

He thought that we should very likely have civil war over again; and in a handsome new church built by his sister at Theale, near Reading, he made a duplicate inscription in memory of her as foundress, saying that thus, "when the old times came over again, and they take the brass to make brass cannon, there would hereby still remain a memorial of his sister."

Explaining the difference between the Tories and the Whigs, he said that according to the Tories, one is to render to the king at least passive obedience; even if he takes one's money or property arbitrarily, one may not resist him; "but for myself," he said, "if any man, be he who he may,-King, Lords, or Commons, or all of them together, -attempted to take my money unjustly, I'd resist him, sir, if I could," (taking me by the button), "I'd resist him.”1

[Mr. Palmer was very successful in his imitation of Dr. Routh's manner. It is necessary to have known the latter to enter fully into these and the following striking reminiscences of him.]

July 4, 1840.-Having obtained Dr. Routh's approbation of my plan of going to Russia, I consulted him further, whether, while living in Russia (I wished to go to Kieff, as the cradle of Russian Christianity), I ought voluntarily to separate myself from the Russian Church, or rather seek the communion from the local Bishop. He approved of my rather seeking the communion, saying also at the same time, "It will lead to nothing, I fear, sir, for a separation there unhappily is; but it will show that there are some among us who wish it were otherwise." He added that he was not aware that we had ever by any public or synodical act renounced the communion of the Eastern Church, or that our churches had ever been excommunicated by name by the Eastern. And towards the end of the reign of Peter the Great, there was a correspondence between certain of the nonjuring British Bishops and the Greek Patriarch, which was carried on through the Russian Synod with the knowledge and favour of Peter; and, even after the Greek Patriarch had sent an ultimatum, closing the correspondence, Peter caused the Russian Synod to write desiring that it might be continued.

death, in 1725, it was dropped.

But at his